the companies to employ men on overtime, for which a higher rate was paid than for ordinary time, with consequent loss to the companies. July was not a favourable month to the railway companies, for in that month a large number of excursions were run; there was a large holiday traffic, and though the mineral traffic was not so great as in winter, yet it was considerable, and was thrown out of gear by the excursion traffic. It was impossible to work it, with all the extra holiday traffic going on, in quite as efficient a manner as at other times. Though July was not marked by snowstorms and fogs, yet, for the reason he had given, it was not a favourable month for the railway companies. The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire had asked for a Return for January, when there were considerable snowstorms; at least they had them in his part of the world. He had not been able quite to reconcile that part of the hon. Member's speech with his previous statement that he was desirous to relieve the railway companies from any obligation during the time of snowstorms or fogs. The hon. Member had referred to the Grantham accident, which took place on the railway in which he was interested. The Grantham accident had nothing to do with excessive hours, and he gave that, not on his own authority, but on that of the inspector appointed by the Board of Trade, who made a minute examination into the cause of the accident. None were more anxious to ascertain the cause than the directors, who regretted that the accident had taken place, because for thirteen years there had been no such serious occurrence on the Great Northern Railway, and it was a great blow to them. He might point out that railway directors did take interest and pride in their work, and their desire was to secure an efficient service for the public and to treat their servants in a proper manner. He would ask the mover and the seconder of the Motion whether they could point to a single accident, where anyone of the public was injured, that was due to excessive hours of labour. He did not believe they could point to a single such case. He would also point out that the number of hours of labour which had been given were in nearly every case the hours of guards or goods drivers, who, it must be remembered, were sent long distances, and frequently spent a large part of the thirteen hours they worked off duty, at some station, waiting to bring their train back. It would be impossible to work the railways on a system under which a twelve hours' maximum day from the time of booking on to the time of booking off was rigorously enforced. Delay was sometimes unavoidable, from storm and other inevitable causes, and the men had to be kept a little late. Was it suggested that if any of these men were kept over twelve hours the President of the Board of Trade should put certain Members of this House in the Clock Tower? Last year there were only fifty-six complaints from railway men, and fifteen of them were dismissed by the Board of Trade as being unfounded, and the remainder were investigated and adjusted. would, no doubt, be told that the men were afraid to come forward, though personally he was not aware that that was so. But if any case of a man's being dismissed for bringing a complaint were alleged, he was certain any board of directors would be only too glad to look into it. What more could they do? MR. SHACKLETON He Clitheroe): They would discharge him (Lancashire, for something else. SIR F. BANBURY replied that if hon. Members proceeded on the assumption that railway directors would not listen to reason and were prepared to do everything that was wrong, he failed to see the purpose of that debate, unless it was followed up by a proposal that the State should take over the railways. Apparently they were getting at the real object. The railway companies had to pay heavy compensation when men were injured or killed, and their object was, naturally, to avoid accidents. He believed that, on the whole, the men were satisfied with the conditions of their labour. In the face of what had been said by hon. Members opposite, it was rather remarkable that the number of people desirous of entering railway employment, which was alleged to be so dangerous and unpleasant, was so enormous. Personally he received many applications from persons who were desirous of finding employment on the railway; it seemed to him to be one of the most popular kinds of employment in the country. He did not deny that there was a certain number of cases where the hours worked appeared to be rather long, but it should be remembered that in such cases they were not hours of continuous work A considerable amount of time was spent doing nothing, and a certain amount of time was occupied in taking food. He was not defending long hours, and the railway companies did not want them, but what he wished to point out was that the very long hours which had been spoken of were not so bad as they might appear to be on the face of the statements made by hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution gave, he believed, the number of instances, not the number of men. That made a great difference. It must further be borne in mind that in by far the larger proportion of the cases in which more than twelve hours were worked, the excess was limited to one hour. The fact should not be overlooked that a railway company had to report to the Board of Trade if a man worked only five minutes over twelve hours. The hon. Member for Derby had spoken of the "cooking" of the returns made to the Board of Trade, and said that the railway company which his right hon. friend near him represented was rather celebrated for that sort of thing. *MR. BELL said he did not make the deliberate charge that that particular company was celebrated for that kind of thing. All he did was to quote an instance. SIR F. BANBURY said that was a rather serious charge to make. He did not believe any railway company would deliberately set about to send a false return to the President of the Board of Trade. There was no doubt that the question of capital largely entered into the matter, especially in the cases of those railway companies which were not so wealthy as others. If railway companies were to get more lines to work the traffic easily, it was absolutely necessary that they should get the capital to make the lines. Every step which the House of Commons had taken during the last year and a half had been such as to prevent people putting their money in railways. If railway companies had to pay more money, to shorten hours of work, and to give traders lower rates and better facilities, it was only to be Sir F. Banbury. expected that the money needed for making improvements on some of the poorer railways would not be obtained. He asked hon. Members below the gangway to consider whether there was not something in what he was saying. It was a matter on which he had some knowledge. It was not to the pecuniary advantage of railway companies that their employees should work long hours, and it was to be hoped that the hours of labour would diminish. It must be remembered, however, that in the management of railways they could never attain the time when a fixed number of hours would be worked, and that there must be overtime occasionally. The object of the railway companies was to render overtime as little necessary as possible. *MR. WARDLE (Stockport) moved an Amendment to leave out all the words words declaring the necessity of amending after "Government," and to substitute the Railway Regulation (Hours of Labour) Act, 1893, providing for a limitation of the hours to be worked on any one day, and for a compulsory notification of all exceptions thereto by the companies themselves, thus removing the onus of complaint from the men. In his opinion, and in the opinion of those whom he represented, the Act of 1893 had proved inefficient to deal with the great and acknowledged evil of long hours. 1904 the Annual Congress of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants passed a Resolution declaring that the Act should be so amended as to compel railway companies to make returns of all following Resolution was adopted— In hours worked over twelve. In 1906 the "The Congress hopes the Board of Trade will give greater attention to this question in the interest of the men employed and the travelling public, and further requests the President of the Board of Trade to take the necessary steps to strengthen the Act of 1893, in order that the Board may be able to enforce their recommendations." If there was time he could quote other statements to show that in the opinion of those concerned the Act of 1893 was not sufficient. This was not a new matter; it had been before the House and the country for many years. The Act had been only partially successful. The evil was very great, though, according to the Returns issued from time to time, it was less than before the passing of the Act. He had examined that the maximum should be less than twelve hours because in the altered circumstances in these days a twelve hours day was too long. Much water had flowed under the bridges since the Act of 1893 was passed, and if twelve hours was considered long enough then by the Committee which sat on that Bill, ten hours was certainly long enough for a maximum day at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hallam Division had said that the railway companies wanted competent men. Why did not they keep the competent men when they had them? It could be proved from the figures issued by the Board of Trade that in certain classes, particularly drivers, firemen, and guards, the men were very much less numerous than they were five years ago, because of the policy of the railway companies in increasing the size of the trains. He hoped that the President of the Board of Trade would listen to no plea as to difficulties or dividends. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War said the other day that there was as much superstition in regard to certain things. connected with the Army as there was in theology, and so there was as much superstition in regard to the maximum day for railway employees. The Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants. asked for an eight hours day for drivers and guards, and a maximum of ten for other servants, and he believed that by proper organisation the difficulties in conceding these hours would disappoar altogether. He had much pleasure in moving the Amendment standing in his name. the evidence given before the Select Committee which sat in 1891-2, prior to the passing of the Act, and he found that the very same companies who were sinners in respect of long hours now were the sinners then. The improvements which had been effected had been very small indeed in all those cases. The individual cases which had been quoted this evening were just as bad as the individual cases with respect to which evidence was given before the Committee. It was no consolation to work these cases out in averages. The fact remained that in July, 1906, there were 95,293 individual cases in which men had actually worked over twelve hours. That had been going on all the time, and he submitted that the time had come when it ought not to be allowed, and when some drastic measures should be taken to bring it to an end. He would like to point out what had been done in foreign countries. In Australia there was an eight hours day, which applied to the running staff as well as to the stationary staff. An Act was passed in Switzerland in 1890, which fixed the maximum at twelve hours with one hour's rest for meals; and in France a regulation was enforce that the men should work ten hours and have ten hours rest, and that if a man worked twelve hours a notice should be posted in the depot shewing that he had done so. The limitations of the hours of railway servants in the United States had been anxiously considered at Washington, and a Bill had been adopted limiting the hours of those employed on railways, which was a very decided advance on labour legislation previously passed in *MR. HUDSON (Newcastle on-Tyne) the United States. President Roosevelt, seconded the Amendment. As an old in his message, drew attention to that fact, railway servant, and one who had worked and said that the ultimate ideal was that for a quarter of a century on the East the hours should be reduced to eight. Coast Railways, he ventured to say that This country ought not to lag behind this was a practical question, and if there other countries in the matter. There was willingness on the part of the railwas not the slightest difficulty, in his way companies, or even of the Board of opinion, in fixing a maximum day even | Trade, if they had the necessary powers, for the running staff; and he thought the hours of railway servants could, hon. Gentleman to the fact that when the Hours Act was before the House in 1893, Sir John Gorst then moved an Amendment that in all cases the hours of signalmen should be limited to eight and the extreme limit for any railwayman to work should be only ten? Seventy-one hon. Members recorded their votes for that Amendment, and yet they were further from that position today than they were at that time. Might he also point out that a Royal Commission had declared that it was the duty of the State to intervene for the regulation of railway work as a dangerous employment? That Commission, which included two representatives appointed by the Railway Association of this country, showed that there was great loss of life amongst the shunters, except in extraordinary circumstances, men in such a position to do that. The be kept whin reasonable limits. The time had come when the hours should be Act of 1893 had in its operations proved regulated by Parliament, instead of under a failure, except for the first two or the Hours Act of 1893, the Board of Trade three years after it was passed. Things calling for a Return or a schedule in all were now worse than they were five cases where twelve hours a day was exyears ago. What was the good of passing ceeded. Owing to the different circuma Resolution of this character, a pious stances that now existed, and the much Motion, asking the Board of Trade to greater mental and physical strain of administer the Act to the full extent railway work as compared with fourteen. when five years after commencing to or fifteen years ago, ten hours should raise this question in Parliament, and be the limit over which they should call for Returns under the Act of 1889 not be allowed to work the men. the position was really worse than before? Moreover, might. he call the attention In September last he had put a question of the House and of the right to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in regard to the drivers and fireman employed at the Midland Depot at Leeds, and recently he had put another question in regard to the same matter. The result was that a fortnight afterwards there was some mitigation of the long hours worked, but soon there was a reversion to the same old system. A week ago there were cases in that particular centre, where men were working thirteen, fourteen and even as much as thirty hours at a stretch, while other men were at home twenty-four hours at a stretch waiting for work. The right hon. Member for Sheffield had asked why it was that the Board of Trade had never gone to the Railway and Canal Commission, but his answer was because the provision in the Act of 1893 for bringing the the goods guards, and the brakesmen Railway Companies before the Railway and Canal Commissioners was practically useless. As one of the Commissioners on Accidents, to which reference had been made, he could say that a railway manager had challenged the Board of Trade to take them before the Railway and Canal Commissioners. Where could they find an employee of a railway company who would go up and give evidence against his own railway managers before the Railway and Canal Commissioners It was not fair to ask Mr. Hudson. employed, and speaking from the practical experience gained by one who had served for over a quarter of a century in this class of service, he insisted upon the necessity for legislation, and a consolidation of existing acts dealing with this most important question. He had great pleasure in seconding the Amendment. Amendment proposed "In line 4, to leave out from the word Government,' to the end of the Question, and to add the words 'the necessity of amend- | man, but he must point out that he did ing The Railway Regulation (Hours of Labour) not limit his observations to the hours of Act, 1893, providing for a limitation of the hours to be worked on any one day, and for a labour. He said that if the railway compulsory notification of all exceptions companies were to be attacked on all thereto by the companies themselves, thus removing the onus of complaint from the sides to pay more wages, to pay more men.'"-(Mr. Wardle.) rates, and to give more facilities and to carry goods at lower charges, there would be nothing left for the shareholders, and Question proposed, "That the words. proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." that THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs) said that all who had listened to the debate would recognise the moderation and fairness with which the representatives of the railwaymen had presented their case. Last year the companies whose conduct was arraigned did not enter an appearance at all; but this time something had been heard from the companies against whom complaint was levelled. He did not quite agree the existing Acts had been failures. They had produced a considerable reduction in the hours of work. Taking the man who worked thirteen hours a day, the percentage of 1891 had been reduced in the case of the Great Eastern Railway from 20 to 7.9; and in the case of the Great Northern, from 26 to 7.7. In all the companies the reduction had been substantial; so that the existing Acts had made a substantial contribution to the solution of the question, though he did not say that they were not open to amendment. That, he thought, would afford an answer to the hon. Gentleman who, speaking on behalf of the Great Northern Railway, said that the reduction of the hours of labour would prevent investors from putting their capital into railway companies and thus prevent the railway companies from giving increased facilities. SIR F. BANBURY said he did not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentle the railway companies would not be able to get any additional capital to make improvements. re MR. LLOYD-GEORGE did not consider the point a sound one. The only excuse he could put forward on behalf of the railway companies because there had been a setback in the hours of labour was that the road was so crowded, especially in Lancashire and in the coal districts, that they could not cope with the traffic. The point he wished to make was that the duction from the high percentages he had quoted to the present percentages had not really affected dividends at all. On the contrary, the railway directors who had spoken in that debate had very properly said it was not to the interest of the railway company to employ the men overtime, and therefore it was not a question of dividend. It was to the interest, as far as he could see, of the railway company, of the workmen, and certainly of the travelling public, that they should reduce the hours of labour so as to bring them within the compass of human endurance. question of method. Up to this year there had been a gradual reduction of hours, but, as far as three companies more particularly were concerned—the Great Central, the Midland, and the It was all a Lancashire and Yorkshire there had been, in some respects, a considerable setback during the year which ended in March. Some of the returns he had |